JOHN  M.  CLAYTON  AND  THE  NICARAGUA  CANAL  TREATY. 


SPEECH  OE  WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 


IN  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY  10,  1853. 


Mr.  SEWARD.  Mr.  President,  on  the  19th  of  April,  1850,  what 
is  called  the  Nicaragua  Canal  Convention  was  signed  at  Washington 
by  John  M.  Clayton,  then  Secretary  of  State  for  the  United  States, 
and  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  then  a  minister  here  for  Great  Britain. 
As  approved  by  the  Senate  and  signed  by  the  negotiators  and  transmit¬ 
ted  to  Great  Britain,  it  contained,  among  others,  the  following  pro¬ 
visions,  viz : 

“  Art.  I.  The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  hereby  de¬ 
clare  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  maintain  for  itself  any 
exclusive  control  over  the  said  ship  canal,  agreeing  that  neither  will  ever  erect  or 
maintain  any  fortifications  commanding  the  same,  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof,  or 
occupy,  or  fortify,  or  colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise,  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua, 
Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America  :  nor  will  either 
make  use  of  any  protection  which  either  affords,  or  may  afford,  or  any  alliance 
which  either  has,  or  may  have,  to  or  with  any  State  or  people,  for  the  purpose  of 
erecting  or  maintaining  any  such  fortifications,  or  of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colo¬ 
nizing,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America, 
or  of  assuming  or  exercising  dominion  over  the  same ;  nor  will  the  United  States  or 
Great  Britain  take  advantage  of  any  intimacy,  or  use  any  alliance,  connection,  or 
influence,  that  either  may  possess  with  any  State  or  Government  through  whose 
territory  the  said  canal  may  pass,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or  holding,  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  one,  any  rights  or  advantages  in  re¬ 
gard  to  commerce  or  navigation  through  the  said  canal,  which  shall  not  be  offered 
on  the  same  terms  to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  other 

“Art.  VI.  The  contracting  parties  in  this  convention  engage  to  invite  every  State 
with  which  either  or  both  have  friendly  intercourse,  to  enter  into  stipulations  with 
them,  similar  to  those  which  they  have  entered  into  with  each  other,  to  the  end 
that  all  other  States  may  share  in  the  honor  and  advantage  of  having  contributed 
to  a  work  of  such  general  interest  and  importance  as  the  canal  herein  contempla¬ 
ted.  And  the  contracting  parties  likewise  agree  that  each  shall  enter  into  treaty 
stipulations  with  such  of  the  Central  American  States  as  they  may  deem  advisable, 
for  the  purpose  of  more  effectually  carrying  out  the  great  design  of  this  conven¬ 
tion,  namely,  that  of  constructing  and  maintaining  the  said  canal  as  a  ship  com¬ 
munication  between  the  two  oceans,  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  on  equal  terms  to 
all,  and  of  protecting  the  same. 

“  Art.  VII.  The  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  having 
not  only  desired,  in  entering  into  this  convention,  to  accomplish  a  particular  object, 
but  also  to  establish  a  general  principle ,  they  hereby  agree  to  extend  their  protec¬ 
tion,  by  treaty  stipulations,  to  any  other  practicable  communications ,  whether  by 
canal  or  railway,  across  the  isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  America, 
and  especially  to  the  inter-oceanic  communications,  should  the  same  prove  to  be 
practicable,  whether  by  canal  or  railway,  which  are  now  proposed  to  be  established, 
by  the  way  of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama.” — 9  Stat.  (U.  S.)  at  Large,  995. 

On  the  29th  of  June,  1850,  Sir  Henry  L.  Bulwer  gave  notice  to  Mr, 
Clayton  that  he  was  instructed  to  insist  in  ratifying  the  convention  on 
an  explanatory  declaration,  that  the  engagements  as  to  neutral  territory 
did  not  apply  to  her  Majesty’s  settlement  at  Honduras  and  its  depem 
dencies.  On  the  4th  of  July,  1850,  John  M.  Clayton  replied,  that  the 
United  States  also  understood  that  those  engagements  did  not  apply  to 
British  Honduras  and  its  dependencies,  and  with  these  mutual  expla¬ 
nations  the  convention  was  ratified  and  the  ratifications  were  exchanged. 

The  British  settlement  at  Honduras  and  its  dependencies  consist  of 


the  town  of  Belize,  on  the  coast  of  the  Caribbean  Sea,  with  a  tract  of 
almost  barren  and  uninhabited  country  stretching  inward,  containing 
about  fifty  thousand  square  miles,  and,  as  is  alleged,  of  certain  islands 
lying  near  by  in  that  sea,  named  Ruatan,  Bonacca,  Utilla,  Barbarat, 
Helena,  and  Morat,  which  territory  and  islands  are  marked,  in  all 
British  maps,  as  colonies  of  Great  Britain. 

On  the  17th  of  July,  1852,  the  British  authorities  at  the  Belize 
issued  a  proclamation  announcing  that  the  Queen  had  constituted  those 
islands  a  distinct  colony,  by  the  name  of  the  Bay  of  Islands. 

On  the  6th  of  January,  1853,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
sent  to  the  Senate  an  answer  to  a  previous  call  for  information,  and 
that  answer  contained  the  notes  between  the  late  Secretary  of  State 
and  the  late  British  Minister,  declaring  the  construction  of  the  conven¬ 
tion  which  I  have  mentioned. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Michigan  thereupon  said  that  paper  dis¬ 
closed  a  very  extraordinary  fact,  to  wit :  that  while  on  its  face,  and  as 
wms  understood  by  the  Senate,  the  convention  included  British  Hondu¬ 
ras  and  its  dependencies,  it  was  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of 
the  Senate  explained  by  the  negotiators  at  the  ratification  to  exclude 
them ;  and  that  thus,  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  the  Senate,  the 
construction  of  the  treaty  was  changed  in  a  vital  point ;  that  in  this 
transaction  the  Executive  Department  of  General  Taylor’s  administra¬ 
tion  had  committed  a  great  error,  unprecedented  in  diplomacy.  And 
he  protested  that  neither  the  Senate  nor  himself,  in  approving,  under¬ 
stood  the  convention  as  it  was  thus  shown  to  have  been  understood  by 
the  negotiators  in  ratifying  it,  and  that  if  it  had  been  so  understood  by 
the  Senate  it  would  not  have  received  a  single  vote ;  and  in  this  protest 
he  included  the  honorable  Senator  from  Alabama,  [Mr.  King,]  who  at 
the  time  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  ;  and  he 
alleged  that  that  gentleman  had  told  him  that  he  had  supposed  until 
that  day  that  the  project  of  accepting  the  Queen  of  England’s  qualifi¬ 
cation  of  the  construction  of  the  treaty  had  been  abandoned,  and  that 
the  convention  stood  without  such  qualification  on  its  original  pro- 
visibns. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Downs]  said  that  he 
thought  the  whole  object  of  the  convention  was  to  get  the  British  out 
of  Central  America,  and  that  it  was  only  on  assurances  given  by  Mr. 
Clayton  himself  that  this  was  the  effect  of  the  convention,  that  he  and 
others,  so  far  as  he  knew,  voted  for  it. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase]  quoted  from  a  geo¬ 
graphical  work  the  following  description  of  Central  America,  and 
affirmed  that  he  and  the  Senate  understood  that  all  the  region  thus  de¬ 
scribed  was  included  in  the  convention,  viz : 

“  Central  America  is  the  long  and  comparatively  narrow  region  between  lati¬ 
tude  7  deg.  and  22  deg.  north,  and  longitude  78  deg.  and  94  deg.  west,  connecting 
the  continents  of  North  and  South  America,  and  comprising,  besides  the  Central 
American  Confederation,  Yucatan,  parts  of  Mexico  and  New  Granada,  Poyais,  the 
Mosquito  coast,  and  British  Honduras.” 

The  honorable  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  Weller]  declared  that 
he  was  astonished  to  hear  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  say  that  he  was 
surprised  at  anything,  however  stupid,  that  might  be  done  by  the  late 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Clayton,  and  that  he  [Mr.  Weller]  had 
never  known  Mr.  Clayton  to  have  any  connection  with  any  public  affair 
in  which  he  did  not  show  himself  excessively  stupid,  to  say  the  least. 


3 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  these  censures  are 
groundless,  and  unintentionally  unjust. 

First.  Granting,  but  only  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  facts 
stated  are  true,  I  shall  show  that  the  transaction  is  not  unprecedented 
in  diplomacy.  The  9th  article  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo, 
as  signed  by  the  negotiators,  was  struck  out  by  the  Senate,  and  another 
was  substituted  in  its  stead.  The  Congress  of  Mexico  refused  to  ratify 
it,  because  it  had  thus  been  changed,  as  they  said,  in  a  vital  part. 
The  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Buchanan,  by  direction  of  the  President, 
Mr.  Polk,  without  the  consent  or  knowledge  of  the  Senate,  signed  and 
delivered  a  protocol,  declaring  that  the  suppression  and  substitution 
was  not  understood  by  the  United  States  to  diminish  what  had  been 
stipulated  before,  and  thereupon  the  treaty  was  ratified,  and  the  ratifi¬ 
cations  were  exchanged.  I  do  not  say  here  that  that  transaction  was 
wrong,  or  that,  whether  wrong  or  right,  it  justified  Mr.  Clayton.  All 
I  do  say  is,  that  even  if  Mr.  Clayton’s  misconduct  has  been  such  as  is 
alleged,  it  is,  nevertheless,  not  unprecedented  in  diplomacy. 

Secondly.  I  shall  attempt  to  show  that  the  memories  of  the  com¬ 
plaining  Senators  are  at  fault,  and  that  neither  the  whole  nor  the  chief 
object  of  the  convention  was  as  they  now  suppose  they  then  under¬ 
stood,  to  get  the  British  out  of  Central  America.  The  preamble  de¬ 
clares  its  object  to  be  to  u  set  forth  and  fix  the  views  and  intentions  of 
the  two  nations  with  reference  to  any  means  of  communication  by  ship 
canal  which  may  be  constructed  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
oceans,  by  way  of  the  river  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua,  and  either  or  both 
the  lakes  of  Nicaragua  or  Managua.”  This  preamble,  and  the  quota¬ 
tions  from  the  convention  before  made,  show  that  the  United  States  had 
a  very  different  object  from  that  described  by  the  Senators,  unless,  we 
are  to  suppose  that  the  United  States  had  really  in  view  a  partial,  nar¬ 
row,  and  selfish  object ;  while  they  held  out  to  the  other  contracting 
party  and  to  the  world  that  they  had  in  view  a  different,  broad,  compre¬ 
hensive,  and  beneficent  one ;  which  of  course  is  not  to  be  admitted. 

Thirdly.  I  think  the  memories  of  the  honorable  Senators  are  at  fault 
again,  and  that  they  did  not ,  when  approving  the  convention ,  under¬ 
stand  it  to  include  all  Central  America  as  they  have  now  described 
Central  America.  The  region  about  the  isthmus  which  divides  North 
and  South  America  is  but  thinly  settled  by  Europeans  and  their  de¬ 
scendants,  and  therefore,  as  yet,  very  imperfectly  known  in  Europe  and 
in  the  United  States,  and  there  is  an  ever-recurring  confusion  of  names, 
as  is  apt  to  happen  in  such  cases.  The  name  Central  America,  em¬ 
ployed  in  the  convention,  has  a  double  sense,  a  geographical  one  and  a 
political  one,  and  these  are  widely  different.  America  is  divided,  geo¬ 
graphically,  into  North  America,  South  America,  and  Central  America. 
Central  America,  geographically ,  is  Middle  America,  viz :  that  part 
of  this  great  continent  which  lies  between  and  connects  North  America 
and  South  America  together.  The  name  is  applied  in  this  sense  in  the 
description  quoted  by  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  and  so  geographical  Cen¬ 
tral  America  does  include  not  only  Honduras  and  the  British  coast, 
‘with  the  five  Central  American  States,  but  also  the  departments  of 
Darien  and  Panama,  and  Paraguay,  in  New  Granada,  and  the  whole  or 
parts  of  six  of  the  States  of  the  United  States  of  Mexico. 

Other  geographers  apply  the  name  still  more  broadly,  and  embrace 
all  the  regions  extending  from  latitude  7°  north  to  latitude  26°  north 


4 

Mr.  CHASE.  If  the  Senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  state  that  I  react 
from  a  work  of  authority.  That  English  work  describes  Central 
America  as  lying  between  two  parallels  of  latitude.  It  did  not  assert 
that  all  the  region  between  those  two  parallels  belonged  to  Central 
America,  but  named  specifically  those  districts  or  territories  which 
consituted  the  country  so  designated.  And  I  said  that  we  had  a  right  to 
believe,  when  the  treaty  was  before  us,  that  the  term  u  Central 
America,”  used  as  it  is  used,  included  all  over  which  either  of  the  con¬ 
tracting  parties  claimed,  or  might  claim,  any  jurisdiction.  Of  course 
I  did  not  assert,  nor  mean  to  assert,  that  Great  Britain  intended 
simply  to  exclude  herself  from  that  portion  of  country  over  which  she 
had  no  jurisdiction,  and  I  am  sure  the  Senator  from  New  York  does 
not  mean  to  represent  me  as  making  such  a  statement. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I  will  read  from  the  printed  speech  of  the  hon¬ 
orable  Senator  from  Ohio,  to  show  the  use  he  made  of  the  authority 
which  he  quoted.  The  Senate  w ill  then  judge  ■whether  he  has  cor¬ 
rected  me  or  himself.  That  Senator  said : 

u  Now,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  the  British  authorities  at  that  time  con¬ 
ceived  to  be  included  within  the  limits  of  Central  America,  I  wish  to  read  an  ex¬ 
tract  from  a  work  which  I  have  before  me.  It  is  Johnson’s  Gazetteer,  published  in 
London  in  1851,  a  work  of  very  high  authority.  Its  description  of  Central  America 
is  in  these  words  : 

“  ‘Central  America  is  the  long  and  comparatively  narrow  region  between  lati¬ 
tude  7  deg.  and  22  deg.  north,  and  longitude  78  deg.  and  94  deg.  west,  connecting 
the  continents  of  North  and  South  America,  and  comprising,  besides  the  Central 
American  Confederation,  Yucatan,  parts  of  Mexico  and  New  Granada,  Poyais,  the 
Mosquito  coast,  and  British  Honduras ? 

u  That  is  the  description  which  an  eminent  British  authority  furnishes  to  us  of 
Central  America.  That  is  the  description  which  we  had  a  right  to  believe  was  in¬ 
tended  by  this  treaty  when  it  was  presented  to  the  Senate.” 

This  is  geographical  Central  America.  But  it  is  laid  down  on  other 
maps  and  described  by  other  geographers  as  extending  from  the  7th  to 
the  26th  parallel  of  north  latitude.  That  would  embrace,  not  only  the 
Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  but  also  the  capital  of  Mexico,  the  States  of 
Coahuila  and  Tamaulipas,  and  even  a  part  of  Texas,  in  our  own 
Republic. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  name  of  Central  America  has  a  political 
sense,  and  means  five  States  on  the  Isthmus  lying  between  New  Gran¬ 
ada  on  the  south,  and  Mexico  on  the  north,  which,  under  the  names 
of  Costa  Rica,  Nicaragua,  Salvador,  Guatemala,  and  Honduras,  con¬ 
federated  themselves  when  they  became  independent  of  Spain,  and  es¬ 
tablished  a  republic  called  the  Federal  Republic  of  Central  America. 
In  the  convulsions  of  that  region,  that  union  has  been  dissolved ;  but 
the  name  acquired  by  it  still  hangs  around  those  States,  and  they,  and 
they  alone,  are  the  States  described,  politically,  in  books,  geographies, 
and  otherwise,  as  the  States  of  Central  America. 

Now,  did  the  convention  use  the  name  of  Central  America  in  its 
geographical  sense,  or  did  they  use  it  in  its  political  sense  1  Certainly 
in  its  political  sense. 

For,  1st.  If  they  used  it  in  its  geographical  sense,  then  it  may  as 
well  be  insisted  that  the  convention  embraces  all  between  7°  and  26° 
of  north  latitude,  as  that  it  embraces  all  between  7°  and  22°  of  north 
latitude,  and  this  would  be  to  make  it  embrace  a  part  of  the  United 
States,  which  would  be  absurd. 

2d.  The  geographical  Central  America,  whether  broad  or  narrow, 


I 


6 

embraces  tbe  regions  which  contain  the  three  celebrated  passes  from 
ocean  to  ocean,  viz:  Panama,  Nicaragua,  and  Tehuantepec;  and  if 
that  be  the  sense  in  which  the  name  Central  America  is  used  in  the 
convention^  then  the  stipulations  are  already  made  between  the  two  na¬ 
tions  for  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  canals  or  railway  pas¬ 
sages  across  all  these  routes.  But  the  convention,  on  the  contrary, 
expressly  confines  its  care  to  the  Nicaragua  route,  and  postpones  to  a 
future,  day  the  making  of  stipulations  in  regard  to  the  two  other  routes 
of  Panama  and  Tehuantepec. 

3d.  The  term  u  Central  American  States,75  in  the  sixth  article,  is 
equivalent  to  and  illustrates  the  meaning  of  the  term  Central  America 
in  the  first  article. 

4th.  The  convention,  in  describing  the  territory  which  is  to  be  made 
neutral,  names  two  of  the  Central  American  States  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  canal,  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica,  and  then  adds,  or  any  part  of 
Central  America — thus  clearly  implying  that  it  was  political  Central 
America  that  was  intended. 

It  wras,  then,  not  geographical,  but  political  Central  America  that 
was  included  in  the  convention,  and  so  the  honorable  Senators  must  have 
understood  it  when  they  approved  it,  unless  we  suppose  them  to  have 
been  so  indifferently  informed  that  their  opinions  were  of  no  value, 
which  is  not  to  be  supposed  for  a  moment. 

4th.  I  shall  endeavor  to  convince  those  honorable  Senators  that  their 
memories  are  still  further  at  fault,  and  that,  when  they  approved  the 
convention ,  they  did  not  understand  it  to  include  British  Honduras  or 
the  Belize  as  its  dependencies ,  which  are  the  same. 

Like  u  Central  America,55  the  name  Honduras  also  has  a  geograph¬ 
ical  sense  and  a  political  sense.  Geographical  Honduras  is  all  Hondu¬ 
ras  from  the  borders  of  Guatemala  to  the  Caribbean  Sea,  and  includes 
Spanish  Honduras  and  British  Honduras — just  as  the  name  Virginia 
long  stood  for  the  whole  Atlantic  border  from  Carolina  to  Canada  ;  but 
political  Honduras  is  the  ancient  province  or  intendency  of  Spanish 
Honduras,  as  it  was  when  it  separated  from  Spain,  and  became  the  State 
of  Honduras,  and  entered  that  Federal  Republic  of  Central  America; 
and  as  it  came  out  of  that  Federal  Republic  on  its  dissolution,  and  as 
it  has  remained  hitherto,  and  is  now  the  State  of  Honduras  ;  and  that 
State,  in  every  book  or  geography,  and  on  every  map,  in  every  atlas,  is 
divided  and  separated  from  British  Honduras  just  as  plainly  and  as 
broadly  as  Kentucky  is  divided  from  Virginia,  or  Alabama  from  Geor¬ 
gia,  while  British  Honduras  is  in  every  such  book  and  atlas  marked 
and  designated  with  the  islands  before  mentioned  as  a  British  colony  3 
sometimes  by  the  name  of  British  Honduras,  and  sometimes  by  the 
name  of  the  Belize. 

I  know,  indeed,  that  Spain  to  the  last  insisted  that  Great  Britain  had 
only  a  partial  and  limited  right  of  occupancy,  but  I  know  also  that 
Spain  still  claims  all  Central  America  and  all  Mexico,  and  all  South 
America,  and  even  Texas.  I  know  that  the  State  of  Honduras  set  up 
the  pretensions  of  Spain,  and  still  insists  upon  them.  I  do  not  say  that 
they  are  not  just.  I  shall  be  glad  if  they  prove  so ;  but  I  know  also  that 
Great  Britain  equally  claims  to  own  British  Honduras  by  absolute  right, 
and  that  although  she  has  two  or  three  times  been  occasionally  dispos¬ 
sessed  in  the  varying  fortunes  of  war,  she  has  so  claimed  it  since  1667, 
and  has  held  it  undisturbed  since  1783,  the  period  of  our  own  acknowledg- 


6 

fed  national  independence.  The  Belize  is  a  British  town  of  two  thousand 
five  hundred  people,  and  with  its  adjacent  territory  has  been  a  colony  near 
two  hundred  years,  governed  by  British  authority  and  occupied  by  a 
British  garrison.  It  is  ecclesiastically  connected  with  the  British  dio¬ 
cese  of  Jamaica,  and  from  1847  to  1850  the  United  States  maintained 
a  consul  there,  Ivlio,  writh  their  consent,  received  his  exequatur  from 
the  Court  of  St.  James.  In  short,  practically,  the  Belize  is  as  much 
a  British  town,  and  British  Honduras  as  much  a  British  colony,*  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  whole  world,  as  Quebec  and  Canada. 

Now,  who  supposes  that  Great  Britain  intended  to  renounce  that  town, 
post,  and  colony,  under  the  vague  and  equivocal  term  of  “  any  part  of 
Central  America  I  ”  No  one  !  Who  supposes  that  the  United  States 
stipulated  for  such  a  renunciation  in  terms  so  vague  and  uncertain! 
No  one  !  It  is  not  so  that  Britain  resigns  or  the  United  States  take 
dominion.  The  terms  “any  part  of  Central  America,7’  then,  did  not 
include  British  Honduras,  and  so  the  honorable  Senators  must  have 
understood,  if  they  knew  the  political  condition  of  British  Honduras  as 
I  have  described  it.  That  condition  was  known  here ;  for  on  the  10th 
of  May,  1849,  a  Senator  stated  in  debate  here,  that  four  companies  of 
Br  itish  troops  had  marched  from  the  Belize  into  Yucatan,  and  that  this 
was  the  act  of  the  colonial  authorities  of  Great  Britain  at  the  Belize ; 
and  he  who  made  that  statement  was  no  other  than  the  honorable  Sem- 
ator  from  Michigan,  [Mr.  Cass.] 

5th.  But,  waiving  for  argument’s  sake  all  the  points  thus  far  made* 
I  shall  next  show  that  the  Senators  were  not  ignorant  of  the  construc¬ 
tion  officially  given  by  Mr.  Clayton  to  the  convention  until  the  6th 
of  January ,  instant ,  when  they  proclaimed  it  as  a  disclosure  then  ob¬ 
tained  through  the  President's  communication. 

The  ratification  was  made  on  the  4th  of  July,  1850.  On  the  14th 
of  that  month  the  President  transmitted  to  Congress  a  communication, 
which  contained  these  words  : 

“  A  copy  of  the  treaty  concluded  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
in  regard  to  Central  America  is  herewith  submitted.  Its  engagements  apply  to  all 
the  five  States  which  formerly  composed  the  Republic  of  Central  America  and  their 
dependencies,  of  which  the  Mand  of  Tigre  was  a  part.  It  does  not  recognise,  af¬ 
firm,  or  deny,  the  title  of  the  British  settlement  at  Belize,  which  is  by  the  coast  more 
than  five  hundred  miles  from  the  proposed  canal  at  Nicaragua.  The  question  of 
the  British  title  to  this  district  of  country ,  commonly  called  British  Honduras ,  and 
the  small  islands  adjacent  to  it,  claimed  as  its  dependencies,  stands  precisely  as  it  stood 
before  the  treaty.  No  act  of  the  late  President’s  administration  has  in  any  manner 
committed  this  Government  to  the  British  title  in  that  territory ,  or  any  part  of  it.” 

This  papier  gave  to  the  Senators,  just  two  years,  five  months,  and 
twenty-two  days  ago,  the  same  information  which  surprises,  shocks,  and 
alarms  them  now. 

But,  Mr.  President,  even  this  communication  was  only  a  reiteration 
of  the  same  information  before  given;  for  on  the  8th  day  of  July,  1850, 
the  following  official  exposition  appeared  in  the  National  Intelligencer, 
together  with  the  convention  then  just  officially  promulgated. 

“The  leading  object  of  the  treaty  appears  to  be  the  establishment  of  a  ship 
canal  across  the  Isthmus  which  connects  North  with  South  America,  under  the 
Protectorate  not  only  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  but  of  all  other  na¬ 
tions  which  desire  the  right  of  passage  through  it  from  ocean  to  ocean  on  the  same 
equal  terms. 

“  In  reference  to  political  advantages  connected  with  that  treaty,  it  may  be  re¬ 
marked  that  all  the  States  of  Central  America,  comprehending  the  immense  extent 
of  country  from  the  Belize,  commonly  called  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  down  to  the 


7 

northern  boundary  of  New  Granada,  is  made  neutral  territory.  No  Government 
entering  into  this  treaty  can  occupy,  colonize,  fortify,  or  assume  or  exercise  any 
dominion  over  any  part  of  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America, 
from  the  boundaries  of  the  Bay  of  Honduras  and  Mexico  on  the  north,  to  those  or 
New  Granada  on  the  south.  The  British  title  to  the  Belize  the  treaty  does  not  in 
any  manner  recognise ;  nor  does  it  deny  it,  or  meddle  with  it.  That  settlement 
remains ,  in  that  particular,  as  it  stood  previously  to  the  treaty.” 

Senators  who  accuse  Secretaries  of  stupidity,  or  suppression  and 
fraud,  cannot  be  allowed  to  plead  ignorance  of  official  expositions  in  the 
official  journals. 

Sixthly,  and  lastly,  I  shall  attempt  to  convince  the  Senators  that  they, 
and  the  Senate,  did  understand  that  the  convention  did  not  include 
British  Honduras  when  they  approved  it. 

Mr.  King,  of  Alabama,  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  and  the  proper  medium  of  communication  between  the  Sen¬ 
ate  and  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  Senator  from  Michigan  tells  us 
that  Mr.  King  has  stated  to  him  that  “  after  the  quasi  ratification  came 
from  England,  on  the  29th  of  June,  he  had  an  interview  with  Mr. 
Clayton,  who  desired  to  know  whether  the  treaty  ought  to  be  sent  back 
to  the  Senate  for  its  action,  on  that  conditional  ratification.”  The  only 
reason  for  sending  it  back  to  the  Senate  was,  that  the  Senate  might  have 
not  understood  the  convention  as  not  including  British  Honduras,  and 
so  might  object  to  the  ratification  of  it,  as  thus  explained  by  the  nego¬ 
tiators.  The  correspondence  between  Mr.  Clayton  and  Mr.  King  tells 
the  result : 

July  4,  1850. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  am  this  morning  writing  to  Sir  H.  L.  Bulwer,  and  while  about  to 
decline  altering  the  treaty  at  the  time  of  exchanging  ratifications,  I  wish  to  leave 
no  room  for  a  charge  of  duplicity  against  our  Government,  such  as  that  we  now 
pretend  that  Central  America  in  the  treaty  includes  British  Honduras. 

I  shall  therefore  say  to  him,  in  effect,  that  such  construction  was  not  in  the  con¬ 
templation  of  the  negotiators  or  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  confirmation.  May  I 
have  your  permission  to  add  that  the  true  understanding  was  explained  by  you  as 
chairman  of  Foreign  Relations,  to  the  Senate,  before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the 
treaty?  I  think  it  due  to  frankness  on  our  part.  Very  truly  yours, 

To  Hon.  W.  R.  King,  U.  S.  Senate.  JOHN  M.  CLAYTON. 

July  4,  1850. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  The  Senate  perfectly  understood  that  the  treaty  did  not  include 
British  Honduras.  Frankness  becomes  our  Government ;  but  you  should  be  care¬ 
ful  not  to  use  any  expression  which  would  seem  to  recognise  the  right  of  England 
to  any  portion  of  Honduras.  Faithfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

To  Hon.  John  M.  Clayton,  Secretary  of  State.  W.  R.  KING. 

So  the  proper  organ  of  the  Senate  reported  that  they  perfectly  under¬ 
stood  that  the  convention  did  not  include  British  Honduras.  The  ac¬ 
cusing  Senators  will  not  impeach  the  chairman ;  and  if  they  do,  I  shall 
not  go  with  them.  I  respect  and  honor  that  distinguished  man — nay, 
sir,  I  love  him.  I  have  received  injuries,  many  of  them,  here.  The 
memory  of  them  died  in  the  hour  in  which  they  were  committed.  But 
I  have  received  kindnesses,  benefits  too,  and  many  of  these  were  re¬ 
ceived  at  the  hands  of  William  R.  King.  Not  one  of  these  shall  per¬ 
ish  in  my  memory,  until  I  give  an  account  of  them  to  his  Creator  and 
mine.  And  now,  since  those  honorable  Senators  have  so  broadly 
assumed  to  speak  for  us  all,  they  will  not  now  deny  that  they  did  not 
know  what  we  all  “perfectly  understood.” 

Just  what  Mr.  King  advised  was  done  by  the  Secretary.  He  took 
effectual  care  not  to  use  any  expression  which  should  seem  to  recognise 


% 


8 


112  0984 


1515 


the  right  of  England  to  the  portion  of  Honduras — that  is,  to  British 
Honduras — which  she  possessed.  That  right  remains  just  as  it  was 
before.  Good  or  bad,  it  is  not  made  worse  or  better  by  the  treaty. 
As  to  the  Bay  of  Islands,  if  it  was  in  fact  a  dependency  of  British  Hon¬ 
duras  on  the  4th  of  July,  1850,  then  the  formation  of  a  colony  there  is 
not  a  violation  of  the  convention.  If  it  was  not  then  in  fact  a  depen¬ 
dency,  then  that  transaction  is  a  violation  of  the  treaty.  But  in  either 
case  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  present  question. 

The  Senator  from  Louisiana,  [Mr.  Downs,]  in  the  very  wantonness 
of  censure,  has  supposed  that  not  only  the  Senate,  but  the  late  Presi¬ 
dent,  General  Taylor,  was  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  conditions  of  rati-, 
fication,  and  this  upon  the  ground  merely  that  General  Taylor  sickened 
on  the  4th,  and  died  on  the  9th  of  July.  But  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  now  appear  to  have  known  those  conditions  on  the  29th  of 
June,  and  the  President  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  intrusted 
by  the  Secretary  with  a  fact  that  was  officially  communicated  to  the 
Senate.  Whatever  else  might  have  been  the  errors  or  misfortunes 
of  that  Administration,  want  of  mutual  confidence  between  the  Sec¬ 
retary  of  State  and  his  distinguished  Chief  was  not  one  of  them. 
They  stood  together  firmly,  undivided,  and  inseparable  to  the  last. 
Storms  of  factions,  from  within  their  own  party  and  from  without, 
beset  them ;  and  combinations  and  coalitions,  in  and  out  of  Congress, 
assailed  them  with  a  degree  of  violence  that  no  other  Administration 
has  ever  encountered.  But  they  never  yielded  and  never  faltered  for 
an  hour.  They  went  on  firmly,  and  firmly  united  together  in  their  great 
work  of  consolidating  the  then  newly  extended  Republic  upon  the  found¬ 
ations  of  universal  liberty,  and  establishing  its  continental  power  on 
the  foundations  of  commercial  interests  and  republican  systems.  The 
Administration  which  they  conducted  was  beaten  down  not  by  human 
hands,  nor  by  human  words,  nor  by  human  votes ;  but  it  went  down 
only  under  a  providential  visitation,  that,  if  it  had  happened  on  the  field 
of  Monterey  or  at  Buena  Vista,  would  have  either  forever  lost,  or  long 
postponed,  the  extension  of  our  borders  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific 
ocean.  Those  who  have  profited  by  political  changes  consequent  on  that 
sad  event  may  listen  unmoved  to  the  censures  which  for  two  years  past 
have  howled,  and  still  are  howling,  equally  around  the  Secretary  of 
State  in  his  retirement,  and  over  the  veteran  and  war-exhausted  Presi¬ 
dent  in  his  grave.  Let  me,  on  the  other  hand,  who  had  some  humble 
portion  of  their  confidence,  and  knew  their  fidelity  to  each  other  and 
to  their  country,  perform,  though  it  may  be  alone,  the  duty  of  vindi¬ 
cating  them  against  the  clamors  of  prejudice  and  error. 

And  let  me  say  to  the  Senator  from  Louisiana,  and  to  the  Senator 
from  Ohio,  and  even  to  the  Senator  from  Michigan,  that,  long  as  their 
careers  respectively  may  be  protracted,  even,  as  I  hope  they  may, 
to  the  ends  of  natural  lives,  in  ripened  age,  and  diligent  and  devoted  as 
I  know  they  are,  yet  that  it  will  be  happy  for  them,  and  for  us  all,  if 
even  then  they  shall  have  established  claims  upon  the  affections  of  their 
country,  and  the  gratitude  of  mankind,  equal  to  those  which  were  per¬ 
fected  in  that  Administration — broken  off  in  its  seventeenth  month,  but 
wisely  conducted  for  that  short  period  by  John  M.  Clayton,  the  emi¬ 
nent  statesman  of  Delaware,  and  presided  over  by  Zachary  Taylor,  the 
hero  who  indicated  and  opened  the  way  of  the  American  armies  to  the 
golden  gates  of  Mexico. 


Buell  &  Blanchard,  Printers,  Washington,  D.  C. 


